tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News February 10, 2013 12:00pm-12:30pm PST
and he says to laura, this zbeit who tells everybody how often we go to the ranch and if we get there at 10:00 in the evening he counts it as a full day. i contradicted it. i don't count it as a full day. >> chris: do you think its tad obsess active -- obsessive. >> i am obsessive, you got me. >> at age 60 he has never married but he has no regrets? >> is this job, is this group, your family? >> sure. it's my life. i am able to cover this place exactly on my terms. i found that very satisfying. >> chris: he isn't sure what he'll do with his files but he would like to find a think tank that wants them and he would also like to write a book. stay tuned to this channel for complete coverage tuesday night
>> paul: and "wall street journal" is the latest american media outlet reporting to be hacked by the chinese government. why they do it and what it means for our national security. >> the president has insisted that any actions we take will be legally grounded and thoroughly anchored in intelligence and have the property prop yacht approval process before any action is contemplated including those actions that might involve the use of lethal force force. >> paul: welcome to the journal editorial report. that was john brennan, the president's counterterrorism advisor and he has picked to lead the c.i.a. defending the administration's policy on drone strikes. a key architect of that policy,
the same week that the white house has reversed course and agreed to provide a memo authorizing drone use to kill al-qaeda operatives including u.s. citizens abroad. joining us is dan henninger and george d.robinoewritz and dan cominsky. what have we learned about the policy this week. >> i think what we learned was an affirmation what we know about the drone policy. it was stated pretty well by john brennan. the bottom line is the drones are being used to kill al-qaeda or al-qaeda affiliated terrorists in northern pakistan and yemen but nowhere else. that there is a justice department memo laying out the legal justification for the drone attacks. it's not clear to me why the obama administration felt they
had to keep that memo secret. it was going to come out eventually anyway but they do have a justification. that the drone attacks are being run by john brennan. >> paul: it coast goes back to the congressional authorization to use military force in the wake of 9/11 and succeeding national defense acts patched by congress. so dorothy, the left really does however, dislike this program or the way it is operated because there was a big assault on brennan in the hearing? >> there was. if the administration had lent townhall and announced the justification, it would still have not diffused the left. >> paul: they want to kill this program? >> they have forever distorted the meaning of due process and accusing the administration and war on terror of violating all due process when in fact due process is elastic theory, it's
an elastic justification. if you can't find terrorists you can use alternate means. you don't have to tell who or what you are doing just provide the guidelines. >> paul: and this is wartime decision-making, doing this against enemy combatants, people that have taken up arms in the united states. this isn't somebody in iowa or around the world, hey, we don't like him. you have to be associated with al-qaeda or associated forces and taken up arms against the united states. that is clearly in that legal memo. >> going back to all time you are allowed to kill your enemies under international standards of war and law. supreme court established seven years ago that the u.s. government can kill a u.s. citizen who has joined an opposing force, in that case was the nazi military.
in this case it is al-qaeda. the problem that has come up against, they waited so long to make both the military and legal case for doing something clearly legitimate and limited that they are now feeling that backlash from mostly from their own flank. >> one more quick point. these terrorists primary weapon is the blowing up of civilian populations using suicide bombers. whether in new york, london, madrid or, indeed, in pakistan or libya. wherever they fight, what they do is blow up innocent people going about their daily business. that is the enemy. >> what about the charge that the administration is too quick to default to drone distant killing as opposed to trying to capture and then interrogate terrorists where you get the best intelligence to be able to prevent future attacks? >> that is really a good question. there is a powerful suspicion that the drone serves the
administration's effort to cleanse itself of the boots on the ground danger. cleanse itself of a place where to put these people we have no place, we have no tents. >> paul: we have guantanamo. >> but they don't want to use it. >> here is clean, completely if they could get away without bringing down all of it on their heads. i have to say, one has a sense of kind of just cause in this outburst of trouble that they are in right now. >> paul: you don't agree with the critics of the drone program do you? >> certainly not. >> paul: you like the drone program? >> i don't know anybody who doesn't except code pink. >> paul: what mistakes did they make? >> they made the mistake thinking they could keep secret this program and justify it. >> paul: not having to justify, but just leave it go.
>> if you listened to brennan yesterday, could you see this absolute perfect emblem of confusion about everything, not only the drones but water boarding and everything. this is perfect exemplar of the administration muddled under. what they wanted above all was not to have to go invade and not to have to go fight. >> paul: so the drones are default for them. thank you all. when we come back, future of the republican party from karl rove's plan to pick winning candidates and sam brownback model, who or what will drive the republican revival.
all right that's a fifth-floor problem... ok. not in my house! ha ha ha! ha ha ha! no no no! not today! ha ha ha! ha ha ha! jimmy how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? happier than dikembe mutumbo blocking a shot. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. i'm here to pick up some cacti.
it should be under stephens. the verizon share everything plan for small business. get a shareable pool of data... got enough joshua trees? ... on up to 25 devices. so you can spend less time... yea, the golden barrels... managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we're going to need to order more agaves... ah! oh! ow! ... and more bandages. that's powerful. sharble data plus unlimited talk and text. now save $50 on a droid razr maxx hd by motorola.
project headed up by steven law and karl rove. the aim is to rebuild the party in the wake of 2012 elections. to that end they pledge to take sides in primary races backing candidates they see as more electable. this has set up a fierce backlash saying that it sidelines conservative candidates in favor of more establishment choices. we're back with dan and dorothy and james freeman also joins the panel. i should say at the start dorothy is a fox contributor. get that out of the way. what do you think of his effort. >> i think she doing a great service. it was overdue. it would take a rational petition. this has happened before. if you remember, goldwater people were very angry people
but compared with the base, they were the mormon tabernacle choir. we have seen karl rove republican heart which watched went on with the primaries, who heard the extremist views of so many candidates. that brings to the republican base. they have a solid word that it is not. >> paul: what about the fact that the establishment so-called candidates that rove backed, in the last primary lost. tommy thompson, for example in wisconsin. danny in montana. they were not tea party candidates and they got beat? >> there was a wave. there was a ground swell. could you be swept up. nobody should be forgetting sharron angle, o'donnell were sure fire old time republican
candidates. mike castle who could have again elected in delaware. >> paul: and christine o'donnell came out of nowhere. james, what do you think of this effort by rove? >> i think you understand why conservatives are skeptical. when buckley said years ago i think we should support the right most candidate that could win the election, he defined american conservatism. karl rove has been the guy in political and policy debates arguing against conservatives in the republican party. the idea that conservatives would trust him to find conservatives who can win is a little strange. i think there is also a tactical question of campaign operation, too. i think a lot of republicans are looking at karl rove, he raised a lot of money this time.
are you fighting the last war instead of getting into social media. look, the republicans nominated the moderate mitt romney and he lost so it's strange afterwards we went too far right. >> paul: mediate the dispute? >> i will with a little cynicism. politics is an industry. this is to great extent about principle but it's also about money. there is tremendous resentment among rove competitors that he has been taking tens of millions out of donor universe. they give to american crossroads and give it to somebody else. there is enormous competition for that money. >> paul: if you are a republican donor and you see the results of the last election, $350 million was spent on senate races or whatever it was -- it was a lot of money, what were the results?
they lost two seats. >> trust me, these donors have opinions about that. >> paul: they say, let's get a higher class of candidates. somebody that doesn't blow up his own candidacy with stupid statements. >> but it's a public performance you can't nominate people that can't perform in public. >> that is the point of rove and particularly with democrats that come in at the end of these republican primaries and sea we're going to help the least electable candidate. what rov is saying we're going to stop some of that so we're going to have better quality of nominees. >> it is possible to say, okay, if he has his hands on something that is really profound truth about one of the reasons of the republican party is in such disarray, it is the focus he is we shouldn't be having electing --
>> show us the measurable. you spend it on x and what was out are result. there were bad candidates as you point out on the right wing and in the center for republicans. i think candidate recruitment needs work. it's a question of the credibility for conservatives of who is going to lead that up. >> what can you say about a republican party today that threatens with a contest, anybody who deev yates from what is so called violation of the base pure it. >> we haven't even brought up one concrete issue you are complaining about here. which raises the question, "wall street journal" had an interesting story about the so-called red state model which is governors like sam brownback and walker that are cutting taxes and doing something real. >> paul: pension reform and we're going to have to wait to get to that in another time. we exhausted our time today.
when we come back the "wall street journal" becomes the latest u.s. news organization reported being hacked by the chinese government. why they do it and what can be done about it and how big a threat is it to american national security? that is next. the machine showed me a map of my feet, and it gave me my custom number. my arches needed more support until i got my number at the free dr. scholl's foot mapping center. i'm a believer! and you will be too! learn where to find your number at drscholls.com. but that doesn't mean i don't want to make money.stor. i love making money. i try to be smart with my investments. i also try to keep my costs down. what's your plan? ishares. low cost and tax efficient.
find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.
>>. >> paul: "wall street journal" that the email accounts of nearly two dozen editors and reporters and some of our editorial writers had been hacked by the chinese government. in recent months they have also targeted the "new york times" and bloomberg news all part of an ongoing attempt to monitor american news organizations china coverage. we're back with matt and brett
joins the panel. how extensive is this china hacking of the united states companies? >> last year we had a visit of a u.s. lawmaker and there are two kinds of companies. there are companies that have been hacked by the chinese and those that don't know they have been hacked. so it's absolutely ubiquitous and google being hacked. "wall street journal" broke the story about british aerospace. >> paul: is this a nuisance or genuinely a threat to national security or the u.s. economy? >> it's a real threat to the economy because it allows the chinese to steal terrabytes of intellectual property and all of a sudden the china puts out fighters that look like our
fighters or bullet trains that look like german or japanese trains. so it allows them not to put the huge investment in research and development. >> paul: why do they do this? there is a tell secrets to actually innovation and do it yourself? why else do they do it? >> to me, what is new here is the media companies. the chinese has been so focused on commercial espionage and cyber is the best way in. but the "new york times" and journal suggest big concern within china and communist party of their image abroad and back in china. a lot of these stories reveal things about the chinese leadership how much money they have, but they don't want come
out and figure out who the sources are for these stories. it's part and parcel of political repression from home. >> paul: our information is that they did not go after customers for example or commercial business. they really wanted to monitor our coverage, to see who our sources were. >> we ourselves are not affected by sources in china, the method by which we get information, there was a huge scandal with this character bogi li accused of murdering a businessman. there were revelations about human wealth of the senior leadership. >> paul: is this the nature of secret authoritarian regime? >> this is a communist country. the as sinister country that believes in espionage, believes in under handed methods. we tend to forget looking a
skyscrapers in shanghai but that is the nature of the regime from the beginning. >> paul: they haven't stopped us from publishing any stories? >> it's sinister but it is stupid that sinister often is because ultimately this will be discovered and going to be exposed. it's self-defeating on their part because they have to develop an innovation culture and stealing secrets won't help. >> paul: what can the united states do? individual companies can harden their systems, but what can the united states as a policy do? >> as companies it will keep happening and the journal found these hackers that everyone is sure they are going to come back. i think the government has trying to find ways to share the know-how the national security agency and the pentagon have with the private sector. the government has invested for
a long time in cyber defenses. their defenses are much better than the defenses around the private sector. >> paul: everybody we talk to the u.s. government has a cyber command and they have done a good job to hearten their system but the private sector does not do nearly, as well. should we make this real priority in dealing with china? >> it has to be. because intellectual property is the property of the future. if the chinese are going to continue to steal it, we have to stop them. >> paul: thanks to you both. we have to take one more break. hits and misses of the week. th. [ voice of dennis ] ...safe driving bonus check? every six months without an accident, allstate sends a check. ok. [ voice of dennis ] silence. are you in good hands? begins with back pain and a choice. take advil, and maybe have to take up to four in a day.
or take aleve, which can relieve pain all day with just two pills. good eye. spending the day with my niece. i don't use super poligrip for hold because my dentures fit well. before those little pieces would get in between my dentures and my gum and it was uncomfortable. even well-fitting dentures let in food particles. super poligrip is zinc free. with just a few dabs, it's clinically proven to seal out more food particles so you're more comfortable and confident while you eat. so it's not about keeping my dentures in, it's about keeping the food particles out. [ charlie ] try zinc free super poligrip.